Marines Fielding New Helmet, Army to Follow

Two branches of the military, the Army and the Marine Corps, will be fielding an improved helmet that offers superior protection against incoming rifle fire. The Marines started issuing the helmet on July 30 of this year.

“Marine procurement officials placed an order for 3,850 of the helmets July 16 and will begin pushing those to Marines downrange or slated for deployment during the first quarter of fiscal 2014, which begins Oct. 1, according to Deidre Hooks, the team lead for the Enhanced Combat Helmet Team,” explains the Army Times.

“Ultimately, the Marine Corps plans to buy 77,000 of the helmets, enough to outfit a large contingent of deployed Marines. The helmet will be issued to those going into harm’s way: a deployment in Afghanistan, for example, or a Marine expeditionary unit headed to the Middle East. They are to be turned in when Marines return to garrison.

This comes after four years of work developing the helmet, called the Enhanced Combat Helmet or ECH. The Marines began the search for what would become the ECH in 2007, accepting designs from four vendors in 2009.

“This helmet is above and beyond,” said Kathy Halo ECH lead engineer. “It was tested and passed using the old standards as well as the new DOT&E protocols. The ECH surpasses anything we’ve had before.”

However, development of the ECH was not straight-forward, as the four initial helmet designs all failed to meet the requirements the Marines set forth, in either ballistics protection or blunt force protection.

Further materials research yielded a ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene material for use with the helmet, one that greatly exceeded the Marines’ original specifications. The design was by one of the smaller companies tapped by the Marines, Ceradyne Inc.

“We had hoped for a 35 percent improvement over the [Advanced Combat Helmet] in terms of ballistic protection and it’s way better than that,” said Col. William Cole. The helmet is capable of stopping a .30 caliber rifle round at point-blank range with no deflection.

By 2011, the Marines had cleared the design for a small production run, after which the helmet failed to perform. Ceradyne implemented a non-standard curing process to manufacture the helmets inside the Marines’ window, which set back the entire project.

At the same time, the Marines changed their testing protocols, using much more rigorous testing. What they discovered was that the design that was being readied for service had a few design flaws that had nothing to do with the curing process. Subsequently, the helmet was redesigned.

“One of the biggest challenges was the change in statistical methodology in the midst of the helmet testing,” Halo said. “Our program was the first test subject for DOT&E’s new approach.”

“We identified anomalies on the production line after the final first-article test was complete,” said Col. Mike Manning, program manager for Infantry Weapons Systems at MCSC. “We fixed it, and now we’re ready for production. We met every requirement of every test we’ve been asked to meet. I’d wear the ECH in a heartbeat.”

Ceradyne, working hand-in-hand with Marine researchers, spent about a year tweaking and testing the ECH design, which passed Corrective Action Verification Testing in June 2012.

The new design is shaped almost identically to the Advanced Combat Helmet, or ACH, and will work with ACH accessories. It’s actually lighter than the Lightweight Helmet.

With all this going for it, it’s no surprise that the Army is making the switch as soon as possible. The Army is expected to start fielding the ECH in 2014, in October.

Almost all sounds too good to be true, but I'm happy that they found something better already. Hopefully those older PASGT and ACH/MICH helmets will start flooding the surplus market now. However, I have to ask WHICH.30 caliber rifle round does it stop? 7.62x39? 308? 30-'06? Or just.30 Carbine, which would be...underwhelming.

Larry Shackleford : 7.62x39 is an old Warsaw Pact round (and the chambering of the AK-47), 7.62x51 is the NATO designation for .308 (with slightly different chamber diagrams). Either one falls short of 30-06. Now if it can deflect a 30 Gibbs round, I'd be utterly impressed.

Gunslinger, those are good points. I’m betting it was 7.62X39 since that’s the most common on the world market. I would not expect to see a single used helmet either. The current administration will make every attempt to stop civilians from acquiring surplus military equipment. In fact I would not be surprised if they magically pop up in the hands of Muslim Terrorists Oops! Did I say that? I meant "Rebels" courtesy of the CIA.

I knew Ceradyne was up to something, hope its as advertised. People didn't believe them because the likes of BAE etc didn't do it. Shows once again how its not always the biggest who achieve things wonderous.

Perhaps I'm a stickler for accuracy with the written and spoken word, but I'm wondering if the Marine Col. meant 'point blank' as it's popularly used, albeit inaccurately, or the true definition of the term. Wonder if he even knows the difference? Still I'm for anything that improves combat survivability of the troops.

In external ballistics, point-blank range is the distance between a firearm and a target of a given size such that the bullet in flight is expected to strike the target without adjusting the elevation of the firearm. The point-blank range will vary with the firearm and its particular ballistic characteristics, as well as the target chosen. A firearm with a flatter trajectory will permit a farther maximum point-blank range for a given target size, while a larger target will allow for a longer point-blank range for a given firearm.[1]

In forensics and popular usage, point-blank range has come to mean extremely close range (i.e., target within about a meter (3 ft) of the muzzle at moment of discharge but not close enough to be an actual contact shot).[1]

Wondering if this is just hype. I've personally saw helmets with bullet holes through both sides(kevlar helmets) on different occasions and with different calibers. I know for a fact that 5.56 nato easily goes through the kevlar through the skull and out the other side of the helmet.

No, the material requirements for ballistic protection and blunt trauma protection are quite different. Although some materials that have recently become popular in sports equipment (d3o) might have made their way into this helmet.

Funny you mention that. I was driving the other day with the window down and a Horsefly spattered enough blood on the doorpost and myself to qualify for a horror film. Who thought you need a full helmet to drive a van?